Nature Conservancy launches climate change research site

The Nature Conservancy plans to put its Dugout Ranch to work -- as a laboratory for understanding how climate change is affecting Utah and for solutions on easing its impacts.
The new Canyonlands Research Center would shift its focus from the discussion of whether climate change is a problem to more practical considerations: How can ranchers, water districts and other natural resource managers best cope with the changes under way -- changes that affect everything from forests, streams and range?
"We've got to act now," said Barry Baker, a climate scientist for the environmental group's Utah chapter. Baker will head up the center. "There's still time to develop land and water management strategies that will enable us to adapt and possibly delay the negative impacts of climate change and protect Utah's communities and natural resources."
The conservation group's latest project in Utah came to light Thursday, as its national office released a new analysis suggesting that Utah will be among the states to see the most dramatic temperature increases because of climate change.
The group's new "Climate Wizard" says that, with the most dramatic emissions increases projected by climate models, Utah's annual average temperature would increase 9.4 degrees over the next 100 years. Only eight other states would see greater temperature increases, says the analysis, conducted in conjunction with the University of Washington and University of Southern Mississippi.

The new center at the Dugout Ranch, the first of its kind in Utah, will eventually include a building that will focus on education and practical research. Kennecott Utah Copper and Kennecott Land Co. have chipped in $210,000 for the project.
The Nature Conservancy acquired the ranch in 1997. It includes 5,200 acres of private land and 300,000 acres of public grazing allotments, including 42 miles of cottonwood and willow riparian areas valuable to wildlife and rare wildflowers.
The center will make use of several critical tools for addressing climate change, including its location on an important monsoonal boundary, a database of climate data for past years and a partnership with rancher Heidi Redd. Other partners include the U.S. Geological Survey, Utah State University, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Indian Creek Cattle Co.
The work already has begun, with the Nature Conservancy's Utah Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. The first-of-its-kind project in the state involves identifying and mapping plants, animals and ecological systems thought to be most vulnerable to changes in climate
"Land managers are eager for science-based data about how to help Utah's species adapt to climate change," said Baker. "This study could provide our first meaningful local answers."
David Nimkin, director of the Salt Lake City office of the National Parks and Conservation Association, noted that U.S. Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and John McCain, R-Ariz., toured Rocky Mountain National Park last week and agreed that climate change is already having an impact. Nimkin applauded the Nature Conservancy for using the new center to find practical solutions.
"We have so many data points and the research is so overwhelming," he said. "What does that mean on the ground?" is one of the questions the center can help answer for those who manage national parks and other natural resources.

Washington state must lead on solutions to climate change

IN her Aug. 7 op-ed, "Cap-and-trade schemes could hurt families and send jobs overseas," state Rep. Shelly Short argues that the cap-and-trade approach is simply another tax with no substantial benefits. And she suggests that efforts to address global warming jeopardize our sovereignty. She could not be more wrong.

Quite literally, greenhouse-gas emissions threaten to render our planet unlivable. Climate change deniers prefer to ignore or minimize the role humans play, or suggest that we cannot afford to alter our condition, or that someone else, somewhere else in the world, should deal with the issue.

There is no avoiding the need to respond to the changes that already hurt both our economy and the natural resources on which we all depend.

Placing a price on carbon, which is the intent of a cap-and-trade system, is one way to ensure that we create an incentive for innovations and alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions.

The time could not be better for embracing innovation. Here's why:

The economy: Last year, Washington state consumers spent more than $16 billion on out-of-state petroleum and coal products. That is a massive amount of money sent to other economies — and a missed opportunity to spur renewable energy creation and production locally. Let's export these products, not buy them from California and China. We can choose to adapt by developing the clean-energy sector of the future. Our state's Clean Energy Leadership Council will help us identify the best options for re-powering our economy and creating new business and job opportunities.

This last legislative session I introduced the governor's cap-and-trade legislation to drive and reward this innovation. This measure didn't pass locally, but the governor did issue a Climate Change Executive Order to keep this issue at the forefront. As many people in our state had recommended, cap-and-trade is now being debated at the federal level, and a proposal would set equal standards for business in all states as well as set an example for other nations to follow.

While we recognize the current national legislation is a great step, the U.S. Senate can improve it by redressing the imbalance that remains between provisions in the bill that largely favor businesses and their high-income shareholders — and effectively represent corporate welfare — and provisions that truly provide relief to typical households. In the current House version, low- and moderate-income consumers would be hit harder by these increased costs because they spend a bigger share of their income on necessities like energy than wealthier households do.

The environment: By capping-greenhouse gas emissions, we are attempting to stabilize the Earth's climate. This is a long-term challenge that is vital to our future. The costs of climate disruption — flooding, forest fires, and droughts — are already choking our economy and will only get worse. A recent University of Oregon study indicates unmitigated climate change will cost almost $4 billion per year for Washington by 2020, or about $1,250 per household per year in added expenses.

Natural resources: Natural resources and the energy we consume daily are not limitless. Energy should be viewed as one of the crucial "quality of life" components for our state and its economy. There are enormous opportunities to make homes, farms, and industry more energy efficient, and create savings and investment opportunities along the way.

The consequences of business as usual: Rep. Short offers no new solutions to the challenge that confronts us. Regrettably, she fails to see the economic opportunity for our state in embracing the innovation that can help Washington prosper in a changing world.

It's past time we live up to our hard-earned reputation for leadership by reinvesting in our own future, delivering jobs and doing our part to stabilize the Earth's climate

Obama Faces Uphill Climate-Change Battle

An overly ambitious agenda may reduce the chances of Senate action on climate change in 2009.
The House of Representatives in June narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts. The bill marked the first time that either chamber of Congress had successfully pushed through legislation to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama wants to push a similar bill through the Senate to bolster his international credibility ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference in December but faces an uphill battle.
House ACES legislation. ACES would establish:
--a gradually tightening cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, designed to cut emissions by 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 (17% below 2005 levels in 2020);
--a renewable energy standard for electric utilities (to require given percentages generation from wind and solar energy);
--funding for carbon capture and storage demonstration plants; and
--additional funding for advanced vehicle technology and battery research.

Himalayan nations to hold first climate talks

South Asian ministers will gather in Nepal next week for talks on the threat that climate change poses to the Himalayas and to the 1.3 billion people dependent on water flowing from the mountains.

Experts say the Himalayan glaciers are melting at an alarming rate and with months to go before a key summit in Copenhagen, mountain nations are hoping to highlight the myriad of problems facing the region.

Climate change campaigners refer to the Himalayas as the "third pole" and say the melting glaciers are the biggest potential contributors to rising sea levels after the north and south poles.

But until now Himalayan governments have not come together to lobby for ambitious emission reduction targets at December's Copenhagen summit, which aims to seal a new international climate change accord.

"Nepal's message needs to be heard, and the message of the mountains needs to be heard," said World Bank water and climate expert Claudia Sadoff, who is helping Nepal's government organise the August 31-September 1 conference.

"The Himalayas have their own very real set of challenges, but there are also a lot of adaptation and mitigation opportunities in the mountains."

Glaciers in the Himalayas, a 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) range that sweeps through Pakistan, India, China, Nepal and Bhutan, provide headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers, a lifeline for the 1.3 billion people who live downstream.

But temperatures in the region have increased by between 0.15 and 0.6 degrees Celsius (0.27 and 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade for the last 30 years, and the effects are already being felt.

In Nepal and Bhutan, the melting glaciers have formed vast lakes that threaten to burst, devastating communities downstream.

Low-lying Bangladesh has always been prone to flooding, but leading environment scientist Atiq Rahman said the speed at which the Himalayan glaciers were melting meant floods were now "more frequent and more vigorous".

Last year Nepal suffered its driest winter in 40 years, bringing the first widespread forest fires the country has experienced and destroying crops that depend on the winter rains.

Campaigners say that while the effects of climate change on low-lying South Asian countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives are now well known, there is little international awareness of the vulnerability of the Himalayan region.

"The general impression is that the Himalayas are huge, impregnable, pristine spaces no one can hurt. But the fact is that they are melting," said Tariq Aziz, leader of the WWF's Living Himalayas initiative.

"The Himalayas are not just mountains. They are a source of sustenance for millions and their most valuable commodity is water."

Nepal's government, which has invited environment ministers from across South Asia to attend the talks, said it hoped to "take a regional voice on climate change to Copenhagen".

"The glaciers are melting and the temperatures are rising in the Himalayas," said environment secretary Uday Raj Sharma.

"This will ultimately affect people's livelihoods not only in Nepal but also downstream."

Some observers have expressed concern that India, which opposes binding carbon emission cuts, will drown out the voices of smaller countries such as Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh at the Copenhagen talks.

New Delhi does not plan to send anyone from the national government to next week's conference in Nepal, an absence that will inevitably weaken any message that comes out of the talks.

India's environment Minister Jairam Ramesh recently expressed scepticism as to whether the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is caused by climate change, saying more research was needed.

But campaigners say the world cannot afford to wait for concrete evidence before acting to mitigate the effects of the melting glaciers.

They say poor mountain states such as Nepal and Bhutan need urgent international assistance to adapt to the changes and to build early warning systems necessary to prevent devastation from flooding or drought.

"There is still debate on the magnitude of the effects of climate change but the consensus is that already, man-made emissions have created temperature increases," said Simon Lucas, climate change adviser to Britain's Department for International Development in Nepal.

"We already know it is the poorest people who will be worst affected, and the number of people impacted in South Asia will be simply enormous

Mayor: Subcommittee hearing on climate change sobering

Mayor Bill Pinkham appreciated the opportunity to tour Rocky Mountain Park with Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) on Monday, when they came to Estes Park to see the ravages of beetle kill and hold a field hearing on climate change and the national parks.
The mayor said in a phone interview Tuesday that it was great to chat with the senators and hear their comments and to listen to the park`s presentation.

"I was astonished when I walked into the board room. It looked like a Senate hearing. They did a good job of setting it up," he said. "I was impressed with the testimony of the experts and with the senators. It`s very sobering to listen to the issues we face in terms of climate change."

Pinkham recalled that McCain said everyone should see what they observed of the beetle kill, including the park`s efforts in dealing with the various effects of climate change on the fragile environment. Pinkham mentioned the loss of glacial activity and the reduction in the numbers of pikas at high altitudes as special bellwether concerns, as well as high-altitude plants that can`t survive the increasing warmth.

Park officials did an "excellent job in describing the climate change here in the park," Pinkham said. "We`re fortunate to be as closely associated to what`s going on as we are."

McCain referred several times to his global travels and how areas worldwide are being affected by climate change. He commented that while there are many people who question the existence of climate change, can we really afford the risk of not doing something about it now, Pinkham reported.

With increases in human population and decreases in natural resources, the effects felt in Rocky Mountain National Park can be felt elsewhere and extend to the entire agricultural community.

"We`re in a unique position to monitor that," he said.

The park was declared a national biosphere in the late 1980s, Pinkham said, and scientists have been coming here since then to study the four ecosystems in the area.

"It`s a great place to measure what`s going on," he said.

For instance, he said one scientist goes to Loch Vale regularly to monitor various chemicals in the water and how the fish are affected. Pinkham and his wife, Sue, volunteer at the park in environmental education.

"We know a lot of park people," he said.

Park scientists use many different tools -- "fascinating measuring devices" -- to monitor air quality, visibility, UV issues, the chemical content of rain and in general "what`s going on," Pinkham said.

He called the Senate field hearing a "nonpartisan approach to trying to deal with this issue (of climate change). Both senators are very concerned about what they see going on."

Pinkham mentioned that an exhibit on water and climate change was of special interest, showing that the East Coast is becoming more watery.

"The East Coast has been a disaster this year," Pinkham said. "From an agricultural standpoint, they`re losing crops. Western Massachusetts has developed a tomato fungus that`s like the potato famine in Ireland. Greenhouse tomatoes have even developed a brown fungus. They`re not getting enough light to reduce the moisture in the greenhouses. There`s about six days of sunshine between Memorial Day and the first day of July."

Pinkham said the wet weather has created pollutants and runoffs from farms.

"It`s been amazing," he said.

Since there are many agricultural communities in the northeast, the climate change there produces fallout everywhere. In Arizona and Utah, for instance, he said, it has made the Navajos reduce their livestock by 10 percent because of the drought.

"The ability for lands to handle the same density of livestock has gotten much worse," he said. "They`re losing the pinons in Arizona. It`s some form of beetle. I talked with Sen. McCain briefly about it. There`s a bunch of things going on that are not good."

Pinkham grew up on a farm with apple orchards, so he is familiar with some of those things -- such as spraying insecticides. They sprayed 13 times during a growing season, he said, for the pre-emergent pests in the spring through August.

"Based on that, all the birds in the area -- and I -- should be dead," he said, laughing.

He drove a tractor during the spraying season, starting when he was 12.

"I know that people are concerned about spray being used," Pinkham said. "There`s a group that says it`s harming our streams and birds."

Pinkham, while not wild about the idea, said that spraying done properly and not overdone is effective and is done selectively in the park. He has a personal backpack sprayer that he uses on his property.

"It`s not like aerial spraying," he said. "It`s done on a tree-by-tree basis. I can spray 30 feet to 35 feet up. You don`t want to waste a lot of the material and you`re trying to concentrate it on the trunk. The concentration is not that heavy. Any potentially harmful effects of spraying can be mitigated within weeks. At this altitude, this stuff dries in a flash. There`s not a lot of moisture left on the trees, but that`s just my personal take. I`m not a scientist.

"I`ve talked with park people (about spraying). There`s still a lot of questions about it, a lot of questions to be answered," he said.

Pinkham said there is a possibility that the town board may consider an ordinance regarding notification of spraying within properties in town limits. He expects a citizens` group may bring this topic before the town board. Boulder has a similar spraying notification ordinance, he said. While the issue may concern private property, adjacent property owners still have the right to notification on spraying, he said.

"There are people who are sensitive to certain chemicals and people who choose to grow organic foods and who are absolutely opposed to having chemicals sprayed in their vicinity," Pinkham said.

Looming Election Could Strengthen Japan's Climate Policy

Japan's landmark elections next week could have sweeping implications for the country's climate change policies.

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), projected to win by a landslide, has pledged to slash Japan's greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels in the coming decade, compared to the 15 percent cut promised by the current ruling party. If that happens, Japan could become the first developed nation to strengthen its targets in the run-up to a major U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen this December.

But analysts both in the United States and Japan warn that change at the top won't necessarily mean a smooth policy shift.

"There's a sense the change will shift their position, but still some of the underlying politics in Japan are not dramatically different," said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"You won't see a wholesale switch. They will still have to deal with concerns of industries and with ministries that have very different views on climate change and that are very strong," he said.

Japanese voters head to the polls on Aug. 30. They are expected to oust the Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled almost continuously for more than a half-century but now faces plunging support because of the economy, rising unemployment rates and taxes. Meanwhile, the opposition DPJ has campaigned on a message of change, vowing to wrest power from entrenched bureaucrats. It is slated to claim more than 300 of the 480 seats in Japan's lower house.

Low ranking in the polls, but stark partisan gap

While global warming is low on the list of voter concerns, analysts say environmental policy represents one of the starkest differences between the parties.

The Liberal Democratic Party is seen as a close ally of industry. Environmental activists have slammed the LDP's proposed midterm targets as weak and only slightly more ambitious than Japan's commitments 10 years ago under the Kyoto Protocol. Its campaign platform on climate change calls for a "Fundamental Law to Promote the Creation of a Low-Carbon Society," but beyond increasing supply for renewable energy and reducing taxes for hybrid cars, it offers few specifics on how it plans to achieve that goal.

By contrast, the DPJ's platform calls for a 25 percent target; implementing a purchase system that would require power companies to buy the entire power output of renewable energy and not simply the surplus power; and increasing renewable energy to 10 percent of Japan's total primary supply by 2020. It also has called for a cap-and-trade system that would bind polluters to mandatory emission limits.

"It's going to be huge," said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the World Wildlife Fund's climate change program in Tokyo, said of the elections. But he also acknowledged that it will be tough for the new party to stick to its target.

"I'm not really sure if DPJ can hold to all the promises in their manifesto, even if they take over the government," he said. "The question is, how much can they do?"

Mutsuyoshi Nishimura, the former ambassador for global environment in Japan's foreign ministry and now a special adviser to the Cabinet, agreed that DPJ's climate plans are "very, very ambitious." But, he noted, one need look only to U.S President Obama's campaign promise to overhaul health care and watch the political challenges he currently faces in trying to actually do it to understand the uphill battle DPJ will face in enacting its climate change vows.

Soaring promises, smaller expectations

"It's one thing to say all these things; it's another to face the realities," Nishimura said. "They will have to accommodate the Japanese reality."

That reality, he said, is one in which Japan already is among the most energy-efficient countries in the world. Many in Japan feel the country can't now make a sharp decline in emissions without facing a steep cost. Meanwhile, Japan's energy-intensive industries remain fiercely opposed to stiffer targets and a cap-and-trade scheme, and are likely to fight any efforts to implement changes.

Michael Auslin, director of Japan studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said Japan wants to be in the vanguard of the "green economy." At the same time, the country -- like most -- is primarily concerned now with the economic downturn.

If DPJ comes into power, Auslin said, "they are first and foremost going to have to focus on turning around the recession." He called the 25 percent emissions reduction target "completely unrealistic," particularly given DPJ's promises on everything from health care to pensions to offering cash for child care and boosting farm subsidies.

"The promises they've made, these are just budget-busting policies," Auslin said. "So the flexibility they're going to have to propose dramatic energy savings measures is going to be limited."

But Yamagishi said he has strong hopes for the likely new government. Even if the party fails to cut 25 percent but still goes higher than the proposed 15 percent below 2005 levels, that will send a strong message to the global negotiations in Copenhagen.

"It could be the first country to actually raise its ambition level," Yamagashi said. "That's going to put pressure on other countries."

Hollywood’s next green generation

100 days before Copenhagen, here are 100 things you didn’t know about Copenhagen

Laughing gas is biggest threat to ozone layer

Millions in Nepal facing hunger as climate changes